RPG Forums

RPG Forums (http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (http://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   US Navy Ships of the Twilight War (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1527)

Legbreaker 03-22-2019 10:46 AM

So what about all the Pact ships and subs in the same situation then?
You've proposed an increased navy for the US, but ignored all the other ship building nations, especially those of the direct enemy.

Raellus 03-22-2019 11:01 AM

Good point, Leg.

Maybe Olefin is just focusing on the U.S.N. in this thread (look at the title).

But yes, a Soviet navy for which the Cold War didn't end (v1.0) would definitely be stronger than that which existed in 1984 or 1996 (IRL).

For example, at the very least, there would be one additional Kutzenov-class carrier, one Kirov-class heavy cruiser, one Slava-class cruiser (Admiral Flota Lobov/Ukrayina), one Gepard-class frigate (probably 3 total), and seven, not two, Neustrashnimyy-class frigates. These were just planned production figures too, not the result of accelerated wartime production. In fact, several of the above-mentioned vessels were already under construction (some were near completion). All of these vessels were cancelled, transferred, or sold off shortly before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, as Leg pointed out, Soviet wartime production would have begun at least a year before NATO wartime production so it stands to reason that there were actually a few more vessels than just those mentioned.

Olefin 03-22-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 81061)
Good point, Leg.

Maybe Olefin is just focusing on the U.S.N. in this thread (look at the title).

But yes, a Soviet navy for which the Cold War didn't end (v1.0) would definitely be stronger than that which existed in 1984 or 1996 (IRL).

For example, at the very least, there would be one additional Kutzenov-class carrier, one Kirov-class heavy cruiser, one Slava-class cruiser (Admiral Flota Lobov/Ukrayina), one Gepard-class frigate (probably 3 total), and seven, not two, Neustrashnimyy-class frigates. These were just planned production figures too, not the result of accelerated wartime production. In fact, several of the above-mentioned vessels were already under construction (some were near completion). All of these vessels were cancelled, transferred, or sold off shortly before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, as Leg pointed out, Soviet wartime production would have begun at least a year before NATO wartime production so it stands to reason that there were actually a few more vessels than just those mentioned.

Yup you are right Raellus - I was just looking at the USN because the thread was dedicated to the US Navy specifically. And I agree that other navies would have had more ships as well - heck for that matter the RN, French, Italians, all would need to be looked at as well.

Leg wasnt ignoring the others on purpose (i.e. not implying that the US is the only Navy that added new ships) - if anything would be great to look at the other navies.

And as I said the number of new ships that could come down the ways in the time frame of the game after the major naval battles of 1996 and early 1997 wouldnt overbalance the game - even the Truman and the Louisiana. Especially if you are short on modern armaments for them and all they would have would be their guns systems (let alone considering the naval fuel situation outside of areas near working oil refineries and oil wells).

Olefin 03-22-2019 12:27 PM

One idea for either Louisiana or Truman could be that they are being used to generate power somewhere because maybe they never got fully armed - or expended their armaments (and in the case of Truman her aviation fuel) - and now are being used purely as floating power stations.

And the ships that were never built but were planned before the Cold War ended included two SSBN - ie. SSBN-744 and 745

SSBN-744 (if it had been built as proposed) would have been launched in July 1997 at Bangor - but wouldnt have been scheduled for completion till 1998

SSBN-745 would have been launched in July 1998 at Bangor with a completion date of 1999

Given that timing that opens some intriguing ideas about what might have happened to them depending on when Bangor was abandoned by the USN - and given what happened in Last Submarine

Legbreaker 03-22-2019 08:36 PM

Given there were more ships (not to mention more naval aviation assets) on all sides, doesn't it then stand to reason there would also be more battles, more losses and therefore the situation in the books really doesn't need adjusting?
We also know both sides used tactical nuclear weapons on land targets including troops, so it would seem given the lesser environmental impact (if only perceived) nuclear attacks on ships would have also been quite prevalent. Soviet guns may not have been as good, missiles can be shot down, but for a nuke, near enough is often good enough to serious damage a vessel and degrade it's ability to fend off following gun and missile attacks.
Additionally, mining an enemy's ports and shipping lanes is a very old and effective tactic, and given the number of Pact submarines and surface vessels capable of doing this, it appears logical some of those shiny new US ships would currently be blocking those ports and lanes albeit unwillingly.

Olefin 03-22-2019 09:37 PM

Leg sorry but having some brand new shiny ships survive the war is a very likely probability. One thing the canon authors werent were naval experts (read the battle description in Satellite Down and you pretty much can see that immediately) and they really focused more on the army aspects of the war and not the naval - except Frank Frey who showed that yes the USN would still have surviving ships and an effective force where they had oil to keep them going.

And the Russian sub force basically got taken out - Last Submarine was very clear there - by mid-1997. If there had been more Soviet subs I highly doubt that the sub in Boomer would have been out there all by herself - i.e. Russian doctrine was that boomers got escorted if at all possible by other subs.

Most likely the newer ships were part of the escort for the Omega convoy and the convoy that took the reinforcements to the Middle East at the end of 2000. There is a very good chance they survived the war for the simple fact that I dont see either the Soviets or the Americans risking what few ships they had left after the huge losses in 1996 and 1997 - think the Japanese fleet in 1943 after they pulled out of Guadalcanal. Both sides probably conserved what they had as much as possible.

Also keep in mind that just because ships werent mentioned doesnt mean much in the canon - outside of the ships detailed by Frank in the Middle East and the ships in Satellite Down there are what - maybe a half dozen actual ships mentioned in the whole canon?

Also if the canon authors could forget or miss things like the 173rd Airborne or Sheridan tanks as part of the units in CA or Iran or the M88 tank recovery vehicle or the OPFOR units in CA then having those authors missing a few new ships joining up with the USN is pretty understandable.

Raellus 03-23-2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 81068)
think the Japanese fleet in 1943 after they pulled out of Guadalcanal. Both sides probably conserved what they had as much as possible.

Not quite. After Guadalcanal, the Japanese briefly "conserved" their main battle fleet with the hope that they could force the "decisive battle" of their established pre-war naval doctrine, especially as Allied forces hopped closer to the home islands. Hence the massive, wasteful, and ultimately futile (for the IJN) battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf in 1944. Even after their fleet was effectively shattered, the Japanese continued an aggressive defense, sortieing a small task force organized around the super-battleship Yamato to oppose the American landings at Okinawa. Again, it did not go well for the Japanese. As a result of these slaughters, by the end of the war, the IJN had very few warships left and most of those were laid up in port to do lack of fuel or irreparable damage. This last point seems particularly germane here.

This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

bash 03-23-2019 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 81072)
This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

Towards the end of my group's Red Dawn-esque Southern California campaign a handful of frigates and destroyers helped us liberate LA and San Diego. Their guns were able to cover MilGov forces coming down PCH. Between my group's spotting and their helicopters they could pound the Mexican forces on the coast with impunity.

Once oil is at least not super rare the US Navy would be very useful for post-Twilight recovery all along the coasts. They would also be able to contain New America and remove the ability to trade by blockading or capturing their ports.

Even under-armed ships would be useful if they can deliver cargo and provide signals and medical support for near-shore ground forces and civilians. They could be hard targets for pirates and such as you'd cover the decks with crew served weapons.

swaghauler 03-23-2019 09:28 PM

I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.
This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it. I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign. I just don't see the losses that the Devs were predicting actually occurring. It's more likely that those ships are simply sitting idle through a lack of fuel and munitions.

The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

Raellus 03-23-2019 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 81077)
I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.

Agreed. I appreciate the stats you posted to reinforce this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 81077)
This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it.

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 81077)
I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign.

I see what you're getting at but, to be fair, the Iraqis were mostly incompetent. It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think the Soviets, especially with a couple of years of high-intensity modern warfare under their belts (China) would roll over as quickly as Saddam's bullies and conscripts. I don't want to belabor this point here because we have a whole thread devoted to it.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 81077)
The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

This is a really good point and could go a long way to explaining OMEGA and the subsequent transfer of troops to the Middle East. It also reminds me of the "raft" from the novel, Snow Crash. Sealift and power generation are two very useful things CVNs and SSNs could still do when the missiles run out.

bash 03-24-2019 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swaghauler (Post 81077)
We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign. I just don't see the losses that the Devs were predicting actually occurring. It's more likely that those ships are simply sitting idle through a lack of fuel and munitions.

Yeah the 80% casualty rate always struck me as goofy. It's not like modern navies sail around like this waiting for a small nuke to take out a battle group: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...group_2006.jpg

I'd buy that 20% of naval forces were combat capable with another 20-30% laid up in port for lack of fuel or supplies to get back to their home port. Even then ships sitting around with no fuel strikes me as an author fiat situation. A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.

Navel vessels are also well equipped to coordinate over long distances. Even with satellite communications most (all?) modern navies still use long range HF for a lot of communications. So that 20-50% of ships capable of sailing can coordinate with friendly/allied ships far beyond the horizon. The average navy vessel would have a lot better long range comms than the average ground based unit post-TDM.

I can also easily see naval aviation being a fond memory post-TDM as military jets are resource intensive in peacetime, they would be resource black holes post-TDM. Flying combat sorties would quickly burn through fuel, parts, and munitions so once the supply chain breaks down every jet ends up a hangar queen. Navies (especially USN) would end up with heavy aviation casualties from canabalization as much from enemy action. Any plane that develops the slightest issue or takes damage would become a part donor for the rest of the air wing.

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

Legbreaker 03-24-2019 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bash (Post 81079)
A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.

Bear in mind that even a small ship burns through more fuel in an hour than an entire Squadron of M1 tanks. The fuel production capacity simply does not exist in T2K and no amount of firepower is going to change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bash (Post 81079)
As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

The exercise wouldn't have been much good if they'd actually sunk the ship too soon would it? Or if it had sunk before they'd had a chance to inspect the damage.
The whole point of this was to keep it afloat until they were ready to sink it on their terms and get as much data as possible in the process.

Olefin 03-26-2019 01:25 PM

Actually Leg you are incorrect there as to the world as a whole in 2001 in T2K - there are several places where the fuel production still exists to keep ships fueled in 2001 in the T2K world - for one Kenya for another the Middle East for a third the ships the Soviets are keeping going in the Caspian - in all those areas there is still fuel being produced in sufficient quantities to keep a small number of full sized warships going - I would also most likely add California from the wells around Bakersfield as well

Olefin 03-26-2019 01:32 PM

as for the effect of a small number of naval ships still being operational you have to look no further than either the Middle East or Kenya as to gameplay - in both areas you can actually do some kind of naval campaign play because there are still active naval ships there - for instance you can battle pirates or be inserted on missions as part of a group of Marines or transported infantry

And a still operational naval vessel gives a GM a chance to do his own version of a Last Submarine type module.

An example is the operational DD that is at Cape May in the Challenge Magazine article - as stated that DD could be used as part of a force stationed there to extract the gold from NYC that is in Armies of the Night once the player characters find it and contact MilGov - thus that one ship can provide aid to the characters and a source of NPC's as part of a NYC campaign - and they have limited fuel so its basically a one or two time part of any such campaign but not in such a way to overpower the scenario

Olefin 03-26-2019 09:40 PM

Also remember that most ships run on the absolute lowest grade of oil - we arent talking rocket fuel here (or jet fuel which is what the Army is running their tanks on) - you can fuel a ship with stuff that would make most cars and tanks and other vehicles grind to a halt

Thats one big fault with the game - they have the military using either diesel or gas for the game. In real life what they use is jet fuel - and they have since 1990 - meaning if you have JP-8 for tanks then you have it for jet planes as well.

bash 03-28-2019 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 81096)
Also remember that most ships run on the absolute lowest grade of oil - we arent talking rocket fuel here (or jet fuel which is what the Army is running their tanks on) - you can fuel a ship with stuff that would make most cars and tanks and other vehicles grind to a halt

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but even the turbines used in most USN ships can use a variety of fuels. While F-76 is preferred they can burn just about anything lighter than bunker oil (and probably bunker oil with treatment) in an emergency. A ship stuck in the western Pacific or Indian oceans could likely get themselves enough fuel to get to Persian Gulf and either join up with Task Force 76 or fuel up to get back to the US.

USN and NATO ships would be able to remain in contact via radio even after TDM. So CENTCOM (and by extension MilGov) is going to have a pretty good accounting of allied naval assets in the eastern hemisphere.

In general NATO navies not being totally wiped out isn't likely to affect a lot of adventures. They're something to consider if you're playing the Great Game to build a new 2300ad background but most T2K games are probably land locked.

Olefin 03-28-2019 09:44 AM

in fact having a few more ships operational adds new possible scenarios for GM's - look at Last Submarine - one of the "adventures" in the module was to recover torpedoes to arm the submarine with - can easily see similar things to recover weapons, tech, etc.. to keep those ships going

I remember one person I talked to who told me that when they did the Satellite Down module it was done by that GM not to recover the satellite but to get the still operational Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles that were on board the Virginia as the reason the team was sent down there

rcaf_777 03-28-2019 05:58 PM

USS Sphinx (ARL-24)
 
Have you ever heard of the USS Sphinx, the ship to fight in four wars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sphinx_(ARL-24)

https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/19/1924.htm

http://www.jaimeelsabio.com/graphics...4-11max550.jpg

USS_Sphinx_Scrap-01.jpg

swaghauler 04-12-2019 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bash (Post 81105)
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but even the turbines used in most USN ships can use a variety of fuels. While F-76 is preferred they can burn just about anything lighter than bunker oil (and probably bunker oil with treatment) in an emergency. A ship stuck in the western Pacific or Indian oceans could likely get themselves enough fuel to get to Persian Gulf and either join up with Task Force 76 or fuel up to get back to the US.

USN and NATO ships would be able to remain in contact via radio even after TDM. So CENTCOM (and by extension MilGov) is going to have a pretty good accounting of allied naval assets in the eastern hemisphere.

In general NATO navies not being totally wiped out isn't likely to affect a lot of adventures. They're something to consider if you're playing the Great Game to build a new 2300ad background but most T2K games are probably land locked.

Yes, this is true. The Navy has even used "distillate fuel" which is basically biodiesel.

swaghauler 04-12-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 81078)

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

My point is that I personally don't see any surviving factions expending large amounts of resources to bring museum ships back into service when there are modern ships sitting in port for a lack of fuel and munitions. Why rehab a WW2 Cruiser that will require just as much "bunker" (the naval term for fuel) as a modern ship?

The ships that would be sailing either don't require those resources (like actual sailing vessels that don't need fuel) or are small enough to actually fuel (like smaller 40 to 60 foot powered vessels used as patrol vessels). The average 50ft powered boat will have a range around 500km. This is a decent range for setting up a regional campaign.

This is an advantage for most GMs because it is much easier to run a scenario using small boats armed with RPGs and MGs than to include a large Frigate or Destroyer in that fight. Most small vessels can also be manned by a two-man crew which better suits Twilight2000's smaller unit tactics too.

I STRONGLY suggest that any GMs looking at naval adventures in coastal areas or the various littoral regions take a look at sailboat listings from such sources as The Moorings Group or Boat Trader. A good 40ft to 60ft sailboat is the ideal floating base for a small group of PCs. They also make good pirate vessels when equipped with MGs. I have a strong preference for Catamarans myself.

Olefin 10-09-2019 12:08 PM

Now that the East Africa sourcebook is official V2.2 canon with the update you can add the following officially to ships listed in Twilight 2000 canon - US, French and Kenyan

TF 212 - Kenya

CG 50 Valley Forge, SH-60 F Seahawk (flagship)
DDG 996 Chandler, SH-2F Seasprite
DDG 46 Preble
FF 1058 Meyerkord, SH-2F Seasprite
FFG 9 Wadsworth
DD 950 Richard S. Edwards
FF 1064 Lockwood (harbor defense)

TF 212.2 Patrol Group - Kenya

USCGC WMEC 725 Jarvis
PC 11 Whirlwind
MCM 7 Patriot
MHC 56 Kingfisher

TF Stryker - Kenya

LST-1190 Boulder (flagship)
LST-1185 Schenectady
LSD-32 Spiegel Grove
Alexander Bonnyman (ex-BDK 14 Mukhtar Avezov)
John Basilone (LCT-1037 Polnochny-B class)
LCU 2031 New Orleans
LCU 1619, 1643 (LCU 1610 class)
LCM 6 – ten
LCM 8 – six
LCAC 90

TF 233 - Kenya

AD 43 Cape Cod (flagship)
T-A0 146 Kawishiwi
AE 22 Mauna Kea
AOE 7 Rainier
AR 8 Jason
YTB-820 Wanamassa
T-ATF-172 Apache
Solstar (Salvage Tug)

Kenyan Navy - HQ Mombasa

P3126 KNS Nyayo (Missile Boat) – six functional Otomat missiles
P3127 KNS Umoja (Missile Boat) – missile system non-functional
P3123 KNS Harambee (Missile Boat)- five functional Gabriel missiles
L39 KNS Tana, L38 KNS Galana (Medium landing ships)
Small River Patrol Boats P943-P947

French Indian Ocean Squadron

Djibouti

A631 Somme (Fleet HQ)
A69 type Sloop F789 Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff
LCM CTM24, CTM25
EDIC Landing Ship Sabre

Reunion

Frigate F730 Floreal, AS 565 Panther
Frigate F732 Nivôse, AS565 Panther
Austral Class Patrol Ship F681 Albatros
BATRAL class Landing Ship L9034 La Grandiere
Naval Oiler C1GH22
P400 class P690 La Rieuse
Light Repair Ship A617 Garonne
RV Marion Dufresne II, AS350 B3

Mayotte

Patrol Boats P763, P790, P721
P400 class P683 La Boudeuse
LCM CTM18

Raellus 07-13-2020 01:26 PM

Glass Hulls
 
More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

rcaf_777 07-13-2020 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 83986)
More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

So your saying that because a amphibious assault ship (not an Aircraft Carrier) that caught fire in port, (not a missile or torpedo strike) could catch fire and sink?

Well that interesting, but stinking a carrier at sea during any exercise is a lot different that sinking one at sea. So is a fire in port where all your hatches are open and no one is battle stations and no damage control parties are ready for a fire.

Maybe if I put wings on my grandmother she be a B-52?

Raellus 07-13-2020 06:17 PM

Not constructive, not civil, rccaf_777. It's fine to disagree, but sarcasm and condescension are totally unnecessary (and contrary to our forum guidelines).

-

pmulcahy11b 07-13-2020 07:23 PM

Just an aside -- was Bonhomme Richard active during the Twilight War? Anybody know enough about the ship to make up something off-the-cuff?

Raellus 07-13-2020 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b (Post 83989)
Just an aside -- was Bonhomme Richard active during the Twilight War? Anybody know enough about the ship to make up something off-the-cuff?

According to Wikipedia, the latest Bonhomme Richard was laid down 4/18/95, launched 3/14/1997. Given accelerated wartime production, I think it definitely would have been active during the Twilight War.

The national news reported this evening that the ship's fire suppression system was shut down for maintenance. I haven't heard or seen mention of winds in San Diego during the fire. Hypothetically, if she had happened to have been at sea when the fire broke out, it's entirely possible that winds (some generated by being under way) could have worsened the fire.

In a wartime scenario, it's quite possible that a missile or torpedo hit, or mine impact, could have knocked out the ship's FSS, leading to fire damage similar to, or likely even worse, than what we're seeing in the headlines. In WW2, many allied ships were lost to fire when their fire fighting equipment was badly damaged or destroyed.

Olefin 07-13-2020 08:16 PM

I would agree with her being active during the war possibly even part of what was sent to the Persian Gulf or to bring the Marines to Korea. If I remember right during WWII damage to fire fighting equipment was part of the reason for at least one carrier being lost possibly even several - ie they couldn’t fight the fires due to the damage

stilleto69 07-14-2020 02:50 AM

Remember Raellus, exercises are just that. The real world is the real world. During my time in the US Army, all the exercises we had, we always lost at least 1-2 platoons of tanks assaulting a position, but when we deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Shield/Storm we didn't lose 1 tank.

After talking with my nephew, who severed about a carrier he told me that the attitude aboard the carrier during an exercise was just that "it's an exercise, it's not real." Whereas once they deployed to the Gulf war zone, the attitude aboard suddenly became "Oh, &&^&*, someone might actually try and shoot at us."

Tegyrius 07-14-2020 06:25 AM

This thread does a great job of illuminating the always-interesting divide between fans who want to burn down aspects of canon they dislike and fans who want to find rational, internally-consistent explanations for them.

One item I don't believe I've seen discussed before, which came out of a side conversation elsewhere: how much of the Navy and Air Force sided with the Broward administration rather than Milgov?

- C.

Olefin 07-14-2020 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tegyrius (Post 83993)
This thread does a great job of illuminating the always-interesting divide between fans who want to burn down aspects of canon they dislike and fans who want to find rational, internally-consistent explanations for them.

One item I don't believe I've seen discussed before, which came out of a side conversation elsewhere: how much of the Navy and Air Force sided with the Broward administration rather than Milgov?

- C.

Discussing aspects of the canon that they find unrealistic is hardly burning down the canon - if anything it’s ways to possibly improve the canon especially now that the 4th edition is on its way and most likely will not be tied to the Twilight 2300 AD timeline.

And some of the Navy definitely had to go with Civgov - after all they managed to transport three divisions to Yugoslavia and at least some support and supplies as well - which requires at least some kind of escort to do that - especially since the Italian and Greek navies most likely still had a few ships left that would have slaughtered unescorted transports

Legbreaker 07-14-2020 08:38 AM

The Italian and Greek navies weren't exactly formidible in the first place, and after several years of fighting Turkey and later Nato there's a pretty good change all they'd have left is a few sail powered fishing boats with machineguns. Might be a few larger vessels, but fuel, ammo and parts would be in short supply rendering sorties few and far between.
An old rustbucket destroyer in Civgovs hands might well be sufficient to keep them at bay long enough to land the troops plus following reinforcements and supplies, especially if Italian/Greek forces weren't being directly threatened.

Raellus 07-14-2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleto69 (Post 83992)
Remember Raellus, exercises are just that. The real world is the real world. During my time in the US Army, all the exercises we had, we always lost at least 1-2 platoons of tanks assaulting a position, but when we deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Shield/Storm we didn't lose 1 tank.

History has demonstrated time and again that those who discount their opponents in peacetime usually pay a heavy price in war.

Stilleto69, keep in mind that the Iragi military c1991 was not the Red Army c1986. Yes, they used a lot of similar equipment (although the Soviets usually didn't export their very best) and doctrine (much of which the Iraqi military misapplied), but to conclude that the US Army would have whipped the Red Army because Saddam got spanked is like arguing that North Vietnam would have beaten the United States in a total war because they whipped the US-equipped and trained ARVN in a limited one.

This topic is dealt with extensively in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....fense+Red+Army

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleto69 (Post 83992)
After talking with my nephew, who severed about a carrier he told me that the attitude aboard the carrier during an exercise was just that "it's an exercise, it's not real." Whereas once they deployed to the Gulf war zone, the attitude aboard suddenly became "Oh, &&^&*, someone might actually try and shoot at us."

By that logic, wouldn't the OPFOR be half-assing it during those exercises too? In that case, the conclusion that CAG's are vulnerable to submarine attack still stands up (if both sides aren't trying, and the OPFOR still manages to sink a carrier, it stands to reason they could also do it if both sides were trying). Or are you contending that only USN sailors don't take exercises seriously? And, not to discount your nephew, but one person is a tiny small sample size. My little brother is career naval officer going on 20 years of service and he doesn't slack, or allow his sailors to slack, during exercises. You could poll the entire active duty USN about how hard they try during exercises and get a wide range of responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin
Discussing aspects of the canon that they find unrealistic is hardly burning down the canon - if anything it’s ways to possibly improve the canon especially now that the 4th edition is on its way and most likely will not be tied to the Twilight 2300 AD timeline.

Discussions of canon are inherently subjective. One man's "improvement" is another's "ruining it". Every GM is free to revise their own T2kU as they see fit, but trying to "fix" it for everyone is a slippery slope. v1 canon is what it is. Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

re CivGov naval resources, there must be a few, as canon has CivGov sending reinforcements to Yugoslavia relatively late in the war. I can't imagine that they'd send troop ships, un-escorted, across the Atlantic and into the hostile Mediterranean.

cawest 07-14-2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 83986)
More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

remember she only had a small crew on board, not a full crew and at battle stations. Now if the ship was in port and took a missile or trop? that might be different. the problem if fighting ship fires is that once the take hold, they are hard to put out. its like the golden hour for combat wounded, but for ships.

stilleto69 07-14-2020 05:50 PM

Raellus, I think you might have misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say sometimes exercises can give a team/unit a false sense of reality. I.e. your point about the Iraqi Army, yes in hindsight we know all what happened, but when I was in the copula, commanding my tank, I could only envision them as the Soviet Army, because that's what I had been trained to fight (their equipment/doctrine/etc.)

But my main point about taking an assumption how things from exercises relate to the real world was like watching the Cleveland Browns beat the New England Patriots in a preseason game, and expecting the same result in the regular season. That was my point. Sorry if it missed you. :(

Raellus 07-14-2020 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleto69 (Post 83998)
Raellus, I think you might have misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say sometimes exercises can give a team/unit a false sense of reality. I.e. your point about the Iraqi Army, yes in hindsight we know all what happened, but when I was in the copula, commanding my tank, I could only envision them as the Soviet Army, because that's what I had been trained to fight (their equipment/doctrine/etc.)

But my main point about taking an assumption how things from exercises relate to the real world was like watching the Cleveland Browns beat the New England Patriots in a preseason game, and expecting the same result in the regular season. That was my point. Sorry if it missed you.

No need to apologize. Thanks for the clarification. You make a good point. Training and "real life" aren't the same thing. One can definitely draw the wrong conclusions about the latter based on the former. As you point out, sometimes, the underdog can derive false confidence from success in "practice" scenarios. I contend that it's the favorite that more often makes mistaken assumptions based on exercises/training maneuvers. If the favorite "wins", it bolsters overconfidence. If they "lose", they write it off to a fluke, beginners luck, or "we weren't really trying". In either case, when the SHTF, a rude awakening often awaits.

I feel like Desert Storm was the exception that proves this rule. The Coalition had been expecting a tough fight but a cakewalk (by comparison) ensued. They trained hard and were briefed to expect stiff resistance. In most cases, they faced little, if any. It was a best case scenario for the Coalition forces.

The argument that I've been making for years is that the US military drew the wrong conclusion from Desert Storm: that Soviet equipment and doctrine were far inferior to their American counterparts, and that a hot war in Central Europe would have gone much better for NATO than the Cold War think tanks predicted.

Tegyrius 07-14-2020 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 83999)
No need to apologize. Thanks for the clarification. You make a good point. Training and "real life" aren't the same thing. One can definitely draw the wrong conclusions about the latter based on the former. As you point out, sometimes, the underdog can derive false confidence from success in "practice" scenarios. I contend that it's the favorite that more often makes mistaken assumptions based on exercises/training maneuvers. If the favorite "wins", it bolsters overconfidence. If they "lose", they write it off to a fluke, beginners luck, or "we weren't really trying". In either case, when the SHTF, a rude awakening often awaits.

This. As someone who's designed, evaluated, or observed a handful of public safety exercises, I'll say that calibrating an exercise to the intended players is a delicate balance. Make it too easy, or make an exercise series too repetitive, and it becomes a pencil-whipping operation which no one takes seriously, and which generates no meaningful capability improvements (which are the ostensible point of said exercise). Make it too hard and your players go away demoralized, lacking confidence in their gear/training/leadership, and they learn nothing.

The need to demonstrate perfection in front of a political audience can be the worst possible factor in exercise design. In the public safety world, we emphasize that the point of exercises is to make mistakes and find failure points in safe, controlled, simulated circumstances so you can eliminate those problems before you're called on to do the same thing for real. Every time I run an exercise, whether tabletop or full-scale, I emphasize in my opening briefing that I expect and want mistakes - if everything goes perfectly during play, the exercise itself is a failure.

Based on discussions with law enforcement trainers with whom I've worked, as well as the few evolutions I've been fortunate enough to participate in, the same principles apply to force-on-force training in the LE world.

- C.

Olefin 07-15-2020 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 83996)
History has demonstrated time and again that those who discount their opponents in peacetime usually pay a heavy price in war.

Stilleto69, keep in mind that the Iragi military c1991 was not the Red Army c1986. Yes, they used a lot of similar equipment (although the Soviets usually didn't export their very best) and doctrine (much of which the Iraqi military misapplied), but to conclude that the US Army would have whipped the Red Army because Saddam got spanked is like arguing that North Vietnam would have beaten the United States in a total war because they whipped the US-equipped and trained ARVN in a limited one.

This topic is dealt with extensively in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....fense+Red+Army



By that logic, wouldn't the OPFOR be half-assing it during those exercises too? In that case, the conclusion that CAG's are vulnerable to submarine attack still stands up (if both sides aren't trying, and the OPFOR still manages to sink a carrier, it stands to reason they could also do it if both sides were trying). Or are you contending that only USN sailors don't take exercises seriously? And, not to discount your nephew, but one person is a tiny small sample size. My little brother is career naval officer going on 20 years of service and he doesn't slack, or allow his sailors to slack, during exercises. You could poll the entire active duty USN about how hard they try during exercises and get a wide range of responses.



Discussions of canon are inherently subjective. One man's "improvement" is another's "ruining it". Every GM is free to revise their own T2kU as they see fit, but trying to "fix" it for everyone is a slippery slope. v1 canon is what it is. Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

re CivGov naval resources, there must be a few, as canon has CivGov sending reinforcements to Yugoslavia relatively late in the war. I can't imagine that they'd send troop ships, un-escorted, across the Atlantic and into the hostile Mediterranean.

Keep in mind that the canon implies that the USN was seriously damaged during the war but that there were still ships left in operation even as late as 2001 - ie the ships that escorted the Omega evacuation, the remaining ships at Cape May and in the Middle East and Kenya. And the canon does confirm that there are warships available for the 1999 movements of troops by both CivGov and MilGov. Per the V1 guide there are a few warships available as escorts - thus there must have been USN units that declared for CivGov.

Legbreaker 07-15-2020 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 83996)
Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

That's pretty much my position too. Do what you like in your own group, but as a whole we should probably stick to making sense of what's already written rather than tearing it down and re-writing. More people will get more benefit that way and get a better understanding of the game world as a whole. From that understanding individuals can make their own changes with a higher likelihood of retaining an overall consistency and believably.

My view on this has remained the same for decades.

Legbreaker 07-15-2020 06:09 AM

It's worth bearing in mind that the Pact navies were virtually destroyed very early on in the war and there wasn't much left in the latter couple of years besides a few scattered commerce raiders. This isn't to say the NATO forces were must better off though.
Given the limited enemy naval forces, it's possible later war convoys could have risked the crossing without escort and probably have made it unscathed, perhaps even undetected nine out of ten times (or possibly better, who knows?). A single lightly armed and obsolete escort may have been deemed more than sufficient to protect ten, twenty or more civilian vessels - it's often all that was available in WWII during the height of the Battle of the Atlantic....

With regard to exercises and training, failure is often a far better teacher than success. Even after 25+ years I still remember those times which resulted in a "loss" for the good guys quite clearly, yet the "wins" all meld together. Provided an honest and open discussion/debrief is carried out, everyone involved learns something and improves their abilities. Consistently winning just plays on confirmation bias and doesn't make the participants actually think.

However, consistently loosing does very little besides impact morale. Being "allowed" to win (when deserved) helps to cement good tactics and skills, and promotes critical thinking and imaginative problem solving.

Olefin 07-15-2020 09:20 AM

Leg I know you want to go with the almost fully destroyed USN but the reality of the canon doesn’t show that. Most likely there are still a decent amount of ships left but they don’t have the fuel left or the weapons available to make them fully operational. For instance the USN and the Soviets still had the forces left that came to blows off the coast of Mexico that left only the Virginia still afloat albeit very heavily damaged pretty late in the war. And the US and Soviets still have the forces that are afloat and fully operational in the Caspian and Persian Gulf even in the spring of 2001.

Also keep in mind the fact that for a lot of modern ships if you don’t have missiles available that many of them are only armed with a single gun. That’s why older ships would be reactivated - more guns means they are actually worth the fuel to deploy them in a world where guns are now the main weapon as missiles run low on both sides. That’s why the Edwards is so effective off of Kenya - the USN had a lot of shells in stock and she is an all gun destroyer - and as such can still be fully effective and worth keeping operational whereas a more modern destroyer with only a single gun may not be


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.